 |
| John L. Hill |
The criticism that the courts were using a catch-and-release approach strengthened during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Ontario justices of the peace were encouraged to jail only as a last resort to prevent overcrowding in detention centres that could become petri dishes for the disease. Not only were the prisoners put at risk of infection, but custodial staff would face the same danger and could bring the disease home to their families and communities.
Unfortunately, the term caught on as a convenient method of denouncing measures that the “tough on crime” proponents opposed. Recently, the Conservative Party of Canada attacked and stooped to using the terminology to attack the Prime Minister. The opening paragraph of the policy statement read as follows: “After eight years of Justin Trudeau, Canada is becoming less and less safe. Violent crime is up by 39 percent under Trudeau’s catch-and-release system, unleashing chaos and disorder in our communities.”
Is such criticism fair? I think not, for at least two reasons.
First, it is not the prime minister who sets accused criminals free; provincially appointed justices of the peace (JP) determine if bail should be granted. JPs who set bail terms do so conscientiously and in a non-partisan manner. It would be just as unfair to accuse Ontario Premier Doug Ford of bowing to a criminal underclass because his officials are responsible for granting bail. Moreover, ethically, as lawyers, we should stand up for the judiciary, which cannot defend itself publicly.
Secondly, the argument oversimplifies a complex situation. The ad contains these statistics: “According to a report published this week by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, violent crime is only getting worse. Canada’s Violent Crime Severity Index is at its highest level since 2007 while the homicide rate is at a 30-year high.” If it were only as simple as ensuring everyone arrested was locked up until trial, one might see merit in such a solution.
There is no specific policy initiative that the Conservative Party spells out as leading to an increase in the crime rate. Many municipal politicians are lured into demanding increased police budgets because the Crime Severity Index shows violent crime is on the increase. A study by the University of Toronto looked at the crime severity index of several municipalities and the increase in police budgets. It found that there was also no significant correlation between funding and crime rates.
Simply locking more people up or adding more cops will not solve the problem. There may well be complex sociological reasons why we are noticing an increase in crime that tax dollars would be better used to resolve rather than increasing jail occupancy or increasing police budgets.
The presence of encampments for the homeless has created fear in many citizens that these people are disrespectful of the rules of society. Once again, this is not a factor that can be blamed on a solitary federal politician. Ontario has downloaded housing to municipal government but failed to recognize that the homeless situation carries with it unique problems that municipalities cannot afford to address: mental health issues, substance abuse and addictions.
University of British Columbia law professor Benjamin Perrin has written about the increased use of police, especially when dealing with homelessness and the psychological and social problems that accompany it. He stated, “In conclusion, we need to stop deploying armed police officers to respond to mental health, homelessness and substance-use issues. Policing is the wrong tool for these societal challenges and worsens things. The path forward lies in dismantling flawed practices and following compassionate, evidence-based solutions that truly serve and protect all members of our communities.”
The Conservative message concludes with the following: “Only common sense Conservatives will stop the crime by ending Justin Trudeau’s soft-on-crime policies and bringing home safe streets.”
Canadians would be better served if the official opposition parties would spell out what initiatives they would bring forward and engage in rational debate. Until that happens, their “common sense” is nonsense.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.